Gary's client is medically qualified and faced an allegation of racially aggravated s.5 Public Order Act having made admissions during interview (when he was unrepresented). He is of good character.

He was then represented by this firm at court when the prosecution agreed (in open court) that they would refer the matter back to the police station in order to administer the client with a conditional caution. This did not happen and a further hearing was listed at court when again the CPS agreed, again in open court, that they would caution the defendant. The following day after the hearing the CPS wrote to us saying that this matter was not in fact suitable for a caution (it would have been contrary to the Sentencing Guidelines on the offence) and made no reference to the offers of cautions made by them in the past. The defendant was then invited to enter a not guilty plea on the basis that there had been an abuse of process following R v Bloomfield namely that:

1. An unequivocal promise had been made by the prosecution to tender no evidence;
2. There had been no change of circumstance that merited departing from the statement; and
3. The prosecution proceeded despite making the promise.

The Crown failed to respond to our skeleton argument outlining the grounds for the abuse, despite two Court Orders requiring them to do so, and eventually took an incredibly unusual stance whereby they would not put forward any argument at all (as to whether the promise was made or the nature of our substantive argument) but sought to 'put the defence to proof' that there had been an abuse at trial.

After Gary gave evidence (as to whether the promise was made) the District Judge, rather than find there was an abuse, invited the prosecution to offer no evidence against the defendant which they did.

Had the client been convicted, there would be been enormous ramifications for his career... another delighted LNL client.